Vacation and Reality

Ben Smith:

Bill Clinton, notoriously, polled his vacation spots. George Bush's Crawford ranch is part of his carefully manicured image as a Westerner. But it's hard to think of a good political reason to vacation in Hawaii, a blue state that most mainlanders only grudgingly regard as part of the United States, and whose singular, multicultural society, which formed the president-elect, is little known or discussed. (A notable exception: that amazing David Maraniss profile of Obama.)

There is, nonetheless, a political logic to vacationing in Hawaii. Part of Obama's success was always his authenticity. Aside from some wince-inducing bowling and sipping of beer, he rarely attempted to be somebody he wasn't. He didn't hoist a shotgun or pretend to be a hunter; on the other end of the spectrum, he never pretended to have other politicians' gift for feeling individuals' pain, or cry at town halls. Vacationing in Hawaii, for no reason except the obvious ones, is good politics because that authenticity is, these days, perhaps the most valuable political commodity. It will be interesting to see if Hawaii remains the "Western White House" after he takes office.

So Bill Clinton's vacations showed his authentic phoniness--he just vacationed where he thought the people wanted him to; Bush's showed his phony authenticity--he pretended not to care what eastern elites thought about his vacation spot, but all the time was really calculating to show his base that he didn't care what the eastern elite thought; Obama's show his authentic authenticity because the only calculation which would make him vacation in Hawaii is demonstrating his authenticity, which obviously makes him authentically authentic. Got it?